Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28726177›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2018

The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.

Craig Hedge, Georgina Powell, Petroc Sumner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 643 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
643citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
55.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

643 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,504 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Exploring the nature and relationship of tobacco cigarette craving and withdrawal.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The next generation of fear generalization.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

583 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Craig HedgeSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK. hedgec@cardiff.ac.uk.
Georgina PowellSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK.
Petroc SumnerSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK.
Cardiff University · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104943/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual differences in cognitive paradigms are increasingly employed to relate cognition to brain structure, chemistry, and function. However, such efforts are often unfruitful, even with the most well established tasks. Here we offer an explanation for failures in the application of robust cognitive paradigms to the study of individual differences. Experimental effects become well established - and thus those tasks become popular - when between-subject variability is low. However, low between-subject variability causes low reliability for individual differences, destroying replicable correlations with other factors and potentially undermining published conclusions drawn from correlational relationships. Though these statistical issues have a long history in psychology, they are widely overlooked in cognitive psychology and neuroscience today. In three studies, we assessed test-retest reliability of seven classic tasks: Eriksen Flanker, Stroop, stop-signal, go/no-go, Posner cueing, Navon, and Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Code (SNARC). Reliabilities ranged from 0 to .82, being surprisingly low for most tasks given their common use. As we predicted, this emerged from low variance between individuals rather than high measurement variance. In other words, the very reason such tasks produce robust and easily replicable experimental effects - low between-participant variability - makes their use as correlational tools problematic. We demonstrate that taking such reliability estimates into account has the potential to qualitatively change theoretical conclusions. The implications of our findings are that well-established approaches in experimental psychology and neuropsychology may not directly translate to the study of individual differences in brain structure, chemistry, and function, and alternative metrics may be required.

Indexed as

IndividualityBrainCognitionCuesFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychologyReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsTask Performance and AnalysisDifference scoresIndividual differencesReaction timeReliabilityResponse control

Identifiers

PMID28726177
PMCPMC5990556
OpenAlexW2724821146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.